Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Over at his site, fellow Texan and blog-friend Bob S. gives out awards for Troll of the Day, and it seems our friend MikeB302000won the award yet again -- this time in a particularly spectacular fashion:

In my opinion there’s too much emphasis on the stand-your-ground defending-what’s-mine mentality and too little emphasis on the value of life, even the criminal’s.

Done what, again? Sweet bleedin' Barnabus, but what a load of self-righteous crap. Why should any of us give a damn about the lives of those who want to violate our personal sovereignty under ANY circumstances whatsoever? These people deliberately choose to break the rules of civil society because for whatever reason they think they're entitled to something for nothing and we're supposed to take their lives into consideration? Why? And exactly how far does this go? Just how much should we let them get away with? How far should we let civilization unravel? I honestly would love an answer to these questions -- more so, considering the fact that those who want something for nothing might well extract the price from whoever it is they're taking stuff from, namely the life of the latter. In other words, why should I give a shit about the life of somebody breaking into my house to take my stuff considering he'd very likely have no compunction about leaving me, my Sabra and/or those beautiful little girls of hers to assume room temperature? Why, MikeB302000? What about THEIR lives? How dare you put some piece-of-shit thief's life on their level. How fucking dare you. You know, I wouldn't take any particular pleasure in putting some punk six feet under who broke into my home, but those who do that sort of thing are -- albeit while posing varying levels of danger -- are the two-legged equivalent of rabid dogs. And they deserve the same fate, for the sake of civil society.

Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps

About Me

I am a very opinionated guy, Texan and quite proud of it. I lean toward the right politically but have a few libertarian tendencies that my conservative brothers and sisters might not agree with. I like guns, old country music and a lot of other things.

Essential Reading

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.-- Cesare Beccaria, in On Crimes And Punishments, later quoted by Thomas Jefferson

Echo

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.-- Alexander Hamilton